What follows is of interest to any
historian, and to those who have uncritically supped at the
German-hatred table for decades. It is also of interest to those who
cannot accept the fact that Adolf Hitler’s Germany during the 1930s
was pioneering anew the eternal human freedom cry: Die Gedanken sind
frei – thoughts are free, and the cry for freedom from predatory
financial debt enslavement and oppression. To this day ‘Holocaust’
propaganda plays a retarding role in this quest for freedom. The mental
enslavement of Germany
as a nation through this ‘Holocaust’ is, almost 60 years after the
alleged event, a fact from which only a minority of Germans has broken
free. In 2000 in London
British historian David Irving mounted a defamation action against
Professor Deborah Lipstadt because she called him, among other things a
‘Holocaust’ denier, something he objected to. At this trial matters
about the ‘Holocaust’ were raised, this in spite of Irving
claiming he is not a ‘Holocaust’ Revisionist. That Irving
is not a Holocaust scholar is evident from the transcript of the
proceedings. A supporter of Adelaide Institute reviewed his trial notes,
and he asked the following six questions, brief answers to which were
supplied by a well-known Revisionist scholar.

Q. 1. Legal Counsel for Lipstadt, Rampton,
says that Leuchter got it badly wrong because far less gas is needed to
kill humans than lice. Is this right?

A: Yes. But that is only one factor in the
equation because in order to kill people within minutes, as stated by
witnesses, one needs just about the same concentration of gas as to kill
lice, which takes hours. In discussions with the other side, both sides
have
therefore agreed that the concentrations of gas used would have been
roughly the same.

Q.2. Rampton also says that Irving
conceded mass gassings at various camps, including Treblinka and some at
Auschwitz. Did
he in fact say this?

A: Yes. Irving also
called the IHR people crazy anti-Semites, and made comments about other
Revisionists, disassociating himself from all Revisionists. His behavior
led to a collapse of any support he had with other Revisionists.

Q.3. What about the re-designing of the
buildings in 1942 and 1943 – the comments made by Professor Robert Jan
van Pelt?A: Van Pelt’s comments are flawed because he relies on a false
interpretation of documents which, if viewed in context, do not only NOT
prove any sinister redesigning but the changes made actually prove that
these installations were NOT used to kill people. For more details on
this critical point read The Rudolf Report, which is
available in English online at www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr.
This book destroys van Pelt’s credibility and anyone else’s who
believes in the homicidal gas chamber story.

Q.4.
The so-called gas chambers could not be used as air raid shelters as
they were too isolated?

A: That is not so and according to
eyewitnesses they were used as such.

Q. 5 .To me the strangest comment of all –
if you put enough fat bodies in a crematorium retort they would be
self-fuelling and you would not need much coke. Were the Auschwitz
retorts designed for multiple body burning and is this the load of
nonsense I think it is?

A: It is nonsense indeed. Even fat bodies
require fuel, and in those years, Jews were not normally fat. The muffle
doors allowed for the insertion of two, perhaps three corpses piled up
on top of each other. However, this would have massively decreased the
speed of incineration for two reasons:

a) The corpses would have blocked the
muffle, preventing the hot gasses from giving off their heat to muffle
walls and corpses - narrowing the muffle leads to a faster flow through
of the gasses, i.e., hot air gets blown out the chimney with little
effect.

b) The speed of incineration directly
depends on the surface/volume ratio of what is burned (the energy enters
via the surface only, but has to heat up the entire volume).Piling up corpses decreases this ratio, hence slowing down the
process of cremation.

In other words it takes longer to burn
three piled-up corpses at once, let's say two hours, than one after the
other at half an hour each, at a total of1.5 hours. Though it could have been done, it would have reduced
the cremation capacity and energy efficiency, not increased it.

This question has been addressed by C.
Mattogno and F. Deana, the latter being an engineer who for decades did
research on the Auschwitz
crematorium technology. See www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html
for more details where you will find an article featured in the book Dissecting
the Holocaust. The hard cover edition is out of print, but a
paperback edition is now available.

Q. 6.In the various points I have read on
Irving’s libel trial, I have not seen anywhere mentioned that if the
morgues were used as gas chambers, how was the gas got out? Surely a
chimney would be needed?

A: The morgues had a ventilation system,
i.e., gas inlets and separate gas outlets. This is quite common for
morgues because corpses develop gases. The ventilation system in morgue
1, the alleged gas chamber, had a normal performance just like any
morgue in Germany. It
was also LOWER than the performance of the ventilation for all other
rooms in this building (the other morgue, allegedly an undressing room,
the dissecting room, the physician's office, etc.) Thus any claim that
morgue 1 was used as a gas chamber can certainly NOT be substantiated by
pointing to its ventilation system, in particular since, according to
German wartime expert literature, the ventilation systems for delousing
chambers had to be 7 times stronger than those used in morgues. See more
about that in The Rudolf Report, or, alternatively in C.
Mattogno's study Auschwitz: The End of a Legend at http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html